That's a heck of a close call, considering the ISS is traveling at 4.8 miles per second. That's little like a car at highway speed running a red light and missing another car by less than one car length.
Not really, since their relative speeds may be far less. If the debris cloud is traveling on the same trajectory at 4.7 miles per second, then their relative velocity is only 360 miles per hour.
On the other hand, if it's traveling on the exact opposite trajectory at the same speed.... ouch.
While that's a valid point for some situations, radar systems tend to have problems tracking objects below a certain size. A marble moving at 36,000 miles an hour isn't likely to be picked up by any radar array that I've ever seen.
The other problem is that they suck up a lot of juice. An active radar dish blaring away 24/7 would be a significant drain on the electrical power available to the ISS. I can't say it's not possible since I don't know how much their solar arrays can generate, but I'm willing to wager that it'd be a problem.
I've seen you claim earlier that the only way the buildings could have been "turned to dust" is through the use of explosives. Here's my question to you: if the kinetic energy of the towers was equal to 200 tonnes of TNT, and if this amount of energy was not enough to cause the effect we've seen, then HOW MUCH explosive would have been required? 400 tonnes? 600? A few kilotonnes? Are you one of those morons who think a tactical nuke was set off in the towers?
No, because what you're not getting is that the collapse on to the lower mass will lose energy, force and acceleration dramatically as it goes, which is what happens in a building collapse.
You'll have to show some calculations if you expect anyone to believe that. It's a preposterous conclusion which is totally unsupported by any simulations.
You can't just put your hand on a model skyscraper and collapse it like an accordion, which is what you're trying to say here.
That's because models don't scale properly. It's complicated, but basically, the bigger you make something the weaker it is.
I'm not too sure why you insist on trying to point out this irrelevant factoid here.
Because you're being an idiot, and I'm countering your foolish assertions.
I can tell you quite categorically that it fucking is hard.
I can tell you quite categorically that you're full of shit. You've obviously never even seen explosives in person, let alone used them, wheres I have worked with them on numerous occasion in the performance of my duties. So please, stop spewing bullshit.
Unfortunately what you're doing here is coming up with a bunch of theories that don't actually fit the mechanics of what we're talking about rather than going out and doing some practical.
Evolution isn't a theory of how life came to be, it is the only theory. No other theory has been presented in a long time. Why do scientists assume Evolution is the answer to this question?
Good point - 9/11 "Truth" is to NIST what "Intelligent Design" is to the theory of Evolution. In neither case is an alternate theory proposed - they're simply an attempt to tear down existing theories through ignorance and lies.
Do you have any idea how much energy was contained in that falling building?
Just to emphasize that point - if I remember correctly, the potential energy contained in the towers was around a Terrajoule, the equivalent of over 200 tonnes of TNT.
What's the point of spending millions to find out why exactly a building right next to the WTC came down on 9/11 ?
To improve future building designs.
Maybe it's time America started focusing on its own people a little more, instead of pretending to be 'the greatest country in the world', while at the same time having more and more people being poorer than most people in former Eastern Europe.
Yeah, those bread-lines at Walmart are getting ridiculous, and a few years down the road, poor people might even have to start selling-off their plasma TV's. It's horrible!
3 steel buildings fall over, the first time in history, under exceptional circumstances, one thats required 7 years investigation to explain.... OR, they were knocked down deliberately.
The momentum and energy of that collapse dissipates and slows as each person collapses until the collapse stops because there is less of you at the top than there is below.
That is, quite possibly, the most retarded statement made so far on this thread. I can't believe you're seriously trying to lecture others about physics.
The mass of the lower structure is largely irrelevant - it's capability to support weight is the important part. If you drop a bowling ball into a 5 tonne tank of water, it's going to drop right to the bottom regardless of the weight difference.
I mean, technically you're right - the lower mass WILL eventually stop the collapse. Unfortunately it will stop it once there are no longer any empty spaces within that lower mass, which is exactly what happened.
If the above were the case then the demolition industry is wasting its money.
For the millionth fucking time, the reason we have controlled demolition companies is to PREVENT DAMAGE. They're not there because blowing up buildings is hard - it's not - they're there because it's hard to blow one up without destroying or damaging half the buildings in a 5 block radius.
Seriously, what's wrong with you?? Have you put ANY thought into this?
The issue of the structural integrity of the lower section of the building is only of secondary importance. The inertial mass of the falling upper section of the building was much less than the inertial mass of the section below.
Seeing as this is roughly the 6,573rd time you've posted this same nonsense without anyone correcting you, I'll step up to bat before you embarrass yourself any further.
The inertial mass of the lower section as a whole is largely irrelevant because the building does not act as one solid object. Each floor can and does fail progressively - therefore it's absurd to model the entire building as just two bodies. If you're truly so obsessed with the mass ratios, you should be looking at the mass of the falling structure as compared to the weight of a single floor.
The downward moving section of the upper floors not only had to break all supports, which might have been trivial, or not, but more importantly had to accelerate the much larger lower mass of the building.
Once again: the entire mass didn't accelerate at once. The falling mass was much greater than any single floor.
Seriously, this is simple physics. Unless you think that Sir Isaac Newton was part of the coverup, you've really got no case.
The buildings fell down at the same speed that a steel ball would fall when dropped from the top of each building
For those of you who visited that site and laughed your ass off at the idiots trying to act like proffesionals, you may also want to check out the Journal of 9/11 Studies. It seems that a few of the nutters finally realized that they'd never get their drivel published in a real journal, so they started their own! Have a look at their "articles" - they're pure comedic genius.
That inertia of the lower floors should have slowed down the rate of collapse considerably even if the support structure failed progressively or even instantaneously.
Which it did - 40% as per the report.
However, the videos clearly show that the buildings collapsed in the same amount of time that a free falling object dropped off the roof would have hit the pavement below.
Neither the videos nor the seismic record show any such thing. If you truly believe that, you've been hoodwinked by the conspiracy idiots.
For WTC1 and 2 this is easy to demonstrate - simply observe the speed of the cloud of debris falling on the outside of the building as opposed to the main mass. You'll notice a massive difference between the two. As for WTC7, it's a lot harder to tell from the video, but there are seismic records which show it took upwards of 20 seconds from collapse initiation to final impact. No matter what the actual numbers, though, there's certainly no evidence to suggest that any of the three buildings collapsed at unusually high speeds.
The only way any large building can collapse in such a short amount of time, is if it's ENTIRE support structures is instantaneously removed.
I see. Which engineering/construction company did you say you work for?
Not to mention that they not only found seats, but found bodies still strapped into the seats. The Moussaoui trial archive has pictures of the bodies and wreckage, which were used as evidence at the trial.
This has been repeated often, and is utterly bogus. No demolition team has ever turned up on site and said "Oh, we'll burn five stories in the top half of this fifty storey building and it will collapse". Never happened. Why? Because there is nowhere near enough energy for those floors to collapse all the floors below them
Why did you lie about not being a conspiracy theorist?
Anyway, any structural engineer can tell you that you're full of shit. There's more than enough kinetic energy in a building like WTC7 to guarantee a complete collapse once the mass starts moving. The reason demolition teams normally get involved is simply because if you want a CONTROLLED demolition, you need to be careful about how you bring the building down. On the other hand, if you don't care about damaging half of Manhattan, you can just send in a midget with a sledgehammer.
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event Ã" like a new Pearl Harbor"
Ah, yes, the favorite canard of the conspiracy idiot. Too bad the rest of the report then goes on to outline in detail the exact opposite strategy of what followed after 9/11.
That passage of the PNAC report is a good litmus test for the honesty of conspiracy theorists. If you quote it as evidence of conspiracy, it becomes obvious that you haven't actually read the PNAC report, nor have you bothered to look at any evidence which contradicts your theories. It's handy in that it allows me to immediately ascertain that you're an idiot, and move on to debating people who may actually care about the truth.
It didn't pulverize the ENTIRE REMAINING BUILDING simultaneously, genius. The falling, growing, and accelerating mass destroyed the remaining building one floor at a time.
Exactly - it's the same principle which allows a martial-artist to smash through 10 stacked concrete slabs. If you stacked the slabs directly on top of each other he'd smash his fist into goo before doing any damage to them, but if you leave a gap - even just a quarter of an inch - it creates enough space for the slabs to break individually instead of as a combined mass.
As a non-African, I find your knee-jerk defensiveness amusing.
African people were doing fine before colonialism.
For limited definitions of fine. Your milage may vary.
The average life span for Africans these days is 65+. What was it before "colonialism"? 30?
Bealive me, femine was unheard of.
Oh, well if YOU say so then OF COURSE, I'll believe you. After all, I'm sure that "as an African" you must have first-hand experience of these events. That would make you what... 500 years old now?
Look around, every country thet's in crisis at the moment has/had European/American involvement.
lol
That's like saying that every country that's in crisis has had exposure to sunlight. Can you name a single country that HASN'T had "European/American" involvement?
Let's look at Zimbabwe: You know why there's more than 1000% inflation? Sanctions imposed by the West because of the "Dictater". The only thing Mugabe did was to take back land.
And you accuse ME of simplifying African politics?
People like you want Africa to be perpetually in debt.
Please. You're acting like a petulant, uninformed child. You get offended by a statement of fact, then proceed to vent your frustration and spew all sorts of uniformed drivel. You know nothing of politics, economics, or history, let alone about my personal opinions, desires, and motivations, yet you presume to to lecture me about all of the above. You are, in short, talking out of your ass, and I have no intention of engaging you in further debate.
Um... I'm sorry, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? Because your tone seems to be rather aggressive, while your statements are perfectly in line with what I was saying.
However, many of the places that are now third world were civilised and economically competitive with Europe until they were invaded and occupied. Do you really think that the 18th century de-industrialisation of India would have been so bad without British colonisation, for example?
India is in Africa now? Gee whiz! When did that happen? I thought tectonic drift was much slower than that....
If you take that baseline and compare it to the people alive in the 21st century you'd expect about 2 billion people to have died in warfare/homocide. The actual number is about 500 milllion.
Yes, Steve Pinker gave an awesome talk about that at the TED conference. I highly recommend it to everyone, regardless of whether you're familiar with the statistics.
By any reasonable metric violence has decreased dramatically over time, yet people continue to believe in this myth that our world is more violent today than ever in human history. It must be part of our "golden age" complex.
It's sad that you got modded troll, since you're one of the few that seem to "get it". I'd only disagree with you on one thing:
And these third world countries were doing just fine before the europeans went and interfered with them... We really should just leave them alone to make their own way without interference.
They weren't doing "just fine" - they were miserable, poor, and died at an extremely early age from all sorts of easily curable diseases. The myth of the "noble savage" is a popular one, but it IS a myth.
Even if it were possible for us to just "leave them alone", it wouldn't be a solution. They'd only continue to stagnate. Some (ok, most) of our current efforts might be misguided and even counterproductive, but we ARE helping them to improve their situation, even if just slightly, over a long period of time. What we should be doing is funding micro-lending ventures, and funneling as much money as possible into educating the residents of relatively stable areas. Help them to help themselves, instead of just dropping "aid" on them and leaving them to fight over our scraps.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, since their relative speeds may be far less. If the debris cloud is traveling on the same trajectory at 4.7 miles per second, then their relative velocity is only 360 miles per hour.
On the other hand, if it's traveling on the exact opposite trajectory at the same speed .... ouch.
While that's a valid point for some situations, radar systems tend to have problems tracking objects below a certain size. A marble moving at 36,000 miles an hour isn't likely to be picked up by any radar array that I've ever seen.
The other problem is that they suck up a lot of juice. An active radar dish blaring away 24/7 would be a significant drain on the electrical power available to the ISS. I can't say it's not possible since I don't know how much their solar arrays can generate, but I'm willing to wager that it'd be a problem.
Big numbers only confuse small minds.
I've seen you claim earlier that the only way the buildings could have been "turned to dust" is through the use of explosives. Here's my question to you: if the kinetic energy of the towers was equal to 200 tonnes of TNT, and if this amount of energy was not enough to cause the effect we've seen, then HOW MUCH explosive would have been required? 400 tonnes? 600? A few kilotonnes? Are you one of those morons who think a tactical nuke was set off in the towers?
You'll have to show some calculations if you expect anyone to believe that. It's a preposterous conclusion which is totally unsupported by any simulations.
That's because models don't scale properly. It's complicated, but basically, the bigger you make something the weaker it is.
Because you're being an idiot, and I'm countering your foolish assertions.
I can tell you quite categorically that you're full of shit. You've obviously never even seen explosives in person, let alone used them, wheres I have worked with them on numerous occasion in the performance of my duties. So please, stop spewing bullshit.
lol
Wow.
Just ... wow.
Good point - 9/11 "Truth" is to NIST what "Intelligent Design" is to the theory of Evolution. In neither case is an alternate theory proposed - they're simply an attempt to tear down existing theories through ignorance and lies.
Just to emphasize that point - if I remember correctly, the potential energy contained in the towers was around a Terrajoule, the equivalent of over 200 tonnes of TNT.
To improve future building designs.
Yeah, those bread-lines at Walmart are getting ridiculous, and a few years down the road, poor people might even have to start selling-off their plasma TV's. It's horrible!
A fool and his money are easily parted.
That is, quite possibly, the most retarded statement made so far on this thread. I can't believe you're seriously trying to lecture others about physics.
The mass of the lower structure is largely irrelevant - it's capability to support weight is the important part. If you drop a bowling ball into a 5 tonne tank of water, it's going to drop right to the bottom regardless of the weight difference.
I mean, technically you're right - the lower mass WILL eventually stop the collapse. Unfortunately it will stop it once there are no longer any empty spaces within that lower mass, which is exactly what happened.
For the millionth fucking time, the reason we have controlled demolition companies is to PREVENT DAMAGE. They're not there because blowing up buildings is hard - it's not - they're there because it's hard to blow one up without destroying or damaging half the buildings in a 5 block radius.
Seriously, what's wrong with you?? Have you put ANY thought into this?
Seeing as this is roughly the 6,573rd time you've posted this same nonsense without anyone correcting you, I'll step up to bat before you embarrass yourself any further.
The inertial mass of the lower section as a whole is largely irrelevant because the building does not act as one solid object. Each floor can and does fail progressively - therefore it's absurd to model the entire building as just two bodies. If you're truly so obsessed with the mass ratios, you should be looking at the mass of the falling structure as compared to the weight of a single floor.
Once again: the entire mass didn't accelerate at once. The falling mass was much greater than any single floor.
Seriously, this is simple physics. Unless you think that Sir Isaac Newton was part of the coverup, you've really got no case.
No, it didn't. Stop lying.
I lol'd :)
For those of you who visited that site and laughed your ass off at the idiots trying to act like proffesionals, you may also want to check out the Journal of 9/11 Studies. It seems that a few of the nutters finally realized that they'd never get their drivel published in a real journal, so they started their own! Have a look at their "articles" - they're pure comedic genius.
Which it did - 40% as per the report.
Neither the videos nor the seismic record show any such thing. If you truly believe that, you've been hoodwinked by the conspiracy idiots.
For WTC1 and 2 this is easy to demonstrate - simply observe the speed of the cloud of debris falling on the outside of the building as opposed to the main mass. You'll notice a massive difference between the two. As for WTC7, it's a lot harder to tell from the video, but there are seismic records which show it took upwards of 20 seconds from collapse initiation to final impact. No matter what the actual numbers, though, there's certainly no evidence to suggest that any of the three buildings collapsed at unusually high speeds.
I see. Which engineering/construction company did you say you work for?
Not to mention that they not only found seats, but found bodies still strapped into the seats. The Moussaoui trial archive has pictures of the bodies and wreckage, which were used as evidence at the trial.
Why did you lie about not being a conspiracy theorist?
Anyway, any structural engineer can tell you that you're full of shit. There's more than enough kinetic energy in a building like WTC7 to guarantee a complete collapse once the mass starts moving. The reason demolition teams normally get involved is simply because if you want a CONTROLLED demolition, you need to be careful about how you bring the building down. On the other hand, if you don't care about damaging half of Manhattan, you can just send in a midget with a sledgehammer.
The Madrid building fire was also faught for many hours. The WTC7 fire was not.
Funny how you get so picky when your theories are being contradicted, yet fail to mention relevant details which contradict you.
lol
It's funny how the biggest fools in the world are always the ones who are utterly convinced that they're right.
Ah, yes, the favorite canard of the conspiracy idiot. Too bad the rest of the report then goes on to outline in detail the exact opposite strategy of what followed after 9/11.
That passage of the PNAC report is a good litmus test for the honesty of conspiracy theorists. If you quote it as evidence of conspiracy, it becomes obvious that you haven't actually read the PNAC report, nor have you bothered to look at any evidence which contradicts your theories. It's handy in that it allows me to immediately ascertain that you're an idiot, and move on to debating people who may actually care about the truth.
Exactly - it's the same principle which allows a martial-artist to smash through 10 stacked concrete slabs. If you stacked the slabs directly on top of each other he'd smash his fist into goo before doing any damage to them, but if you leave a gap - even just a quarter of an inch - it creates enough space for the slabs to break individually instead of as a combined mass.
Directional spike strips :)
I agree, btw, that the original "philosophical point' was silly. I'm just playing devils advocate.
As a non-African, I find your knee-jerk defensiveness amusing.
For limited definitions of fine. Your milage may vary.
The average life span for Africans these days is 65+. What was it before "colonialism"? 30?
Oh, well if YOU say so then OF COURSE, I'll believe you. After all, I'm sure that "as an African" you must have first-hand experience of these events. That would make you what ... 500 years old now?
lol
That's like saying that every country that's in crisis has had exposure to sunlight. Can you name a single country that HASN'T had "European/American" involvement?
And you accuse ME of simplifying African politics?
Please. You're acting like a petulant, uninformed child. You get offended by a statement of fact, then proceed to vent your frustration and spew all sorts of uniformed drivel. You know nothing of politics, economics, or history, let alone about my personal opinions, desires, and motivations, yet you presume to to lecture me about all of the above. You are, in short, talking out of your ass, and I have no intention of engaging you in further debate.
Thanks for clearing that up :)
Um ... I'm sorry, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? Because your tone seems to be rather aggressive, while your statements are perfectly in line with what I was saying.
India is in Africa now? Gee whiz! When did that happen? I thought tectonic drift was much slower than that ....
Yes, Steve Pinker gave an awesome talk about that at the TED conference. I highly recommend it to everyone, regardless of whether you're familiar with the statistics.
By any reasonable metric violence has decreased dramatically over time, yet people continue to believe in this myth that our world is more violent today than ever in human history. It must be part of our "golden age" complex.
It's sad that you got modded troll, since you're one of the few that seem to "get it". I'd only disagree with you on one thing:
They weren't doing "just fine" - they were miserable, poor, and died at an extremely early age from all sorts of easily curable diseases. The myth of the "noble savage" is a popular one, but it IS a myth.
Even if it were possible for us to just "leave them alone", it wouldn't be a solution. They'd only continue to stagnate. Some (ok, most) of our current efforts might be misguided and even counterproductive, but we ARE helping them to improve their situation, even if just slightly, over a long period of time. What we should be doing is funding micro-lending ventures, and funneling as much money as possible into educating the residents of relatively stable areas. Help them to help themselves, instead of just dropping "aid" on them and leaving them to fight over our scraps.